Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Does god exist?

Whether I believe in God usually depends on the person asking the question. If for example a fundamentalist fire brimstone type God of Abraham Christian/Muslim asks then the answer is no. I do not. That might not always be the answer depending on who is asking as when someone asks do you believe in God they are for the most part asking do you believe in my personal God.

Re: Does god exist?

Originally Posted by Mdougie

Whether I believe in God usually depends on the person asking the question. If for example a fundamentalist fire brimstone type God of Abraham Christian/Muslim asks then the answer is no. I do not. That might not always be the answer depending on who is asking as when someone asks do you believe in God they are for the most part asking do you believe in my personal God.

To answer your OP's question I have to know what is meant by God.

Is this kinda like when a hot girl asks me if I believe in casual sex and I say absolutely, but when an ugly chick asks me, I say, absolutely not? Well, the truth is, since there is a condition where I say/believe yes, then the answer is simply yes. I believe in it always. I practice it selectively. Seems to me this is your stance regarding god. Wonder if god appreciates how fickle you are.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Does god exist?

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

Is this kinda like when a hot girl asks me if I believe in casual sex and I say absolutely, but when an ugly chick asks me, I say, absolutely not? Well, the truth is, since there is a condition where I say/believe yes, then the answer is simply yes. I believe in it always. I practice it selectively. Seems to me this is your stance regarding god. Wonder if god appreciates how fickle you are.

Re: Does god exist?

Originally Posted by Abut77

I appreciate that similar forums have already been created, but I wish to start a fresh page, and furthermore, most past threads of a similar sort have not been open discussions, whereas I intend this one to be just that. Please argue your opinion on whether or not god exists.

Ran into this thread because of the Viagra sales spammer. That spam brought it up to my feed.

The question seems to indicate that you are talking about a particular god.

I'd like to offer an "opinion" (actually a guess) on the question of whether or not any gods exist...rather than limit it to the one god you are asking about, whichever that is. (I don't normally do this, but I'd really like to see this thread come back to life, so I am going to break my rule against doing it.)

Here goes:

My guess is that at least one god exists.

The reason for that guess is because the coin I tossed (I actually did toss one) came up heads...and before tossing it, I decided "heads" would indicate "at least one does." "Tails" would have made my guess: No gods exist.

I argue further that tossing a coin is the most reasonable way of making a guess on this issue.

Re: Does god exist?

I agree with that statement. Logically only one view can be true to what is. But, why is your view it?

Originally Posted by Sigfried

In the religions understanding of it, complete with miracles and so forth. No.

So a Creator can't do things that are outside His creation (miracles)?

Originally Posted by Sigfried

I see a lot of different people claim to have revealed knowledge of such deities and lots of antipodal claims of said deities doing things, but no actual reliable proof of any of it.
So at face value I think it is simply human nature to invent imaginary beings more powerful than themselves they can turn to when they find life overwhelming and fueled by our great imaginations and sense of self aggrandizement.

So do I, but I believe God has left us a revelation that is verifiable. He has 'spoken' to us in various ways; by what has been created, by a written revelation, and through His Spirit and Son.

Originally Posted by Sigfried

There is even a definition for God I can find little to no fault in. [1] That is to call the universe itself God. [2] It is indeed greater than any individual person. It is greater than any collection of us. It is after all everything there is. It is the only entity that knows everything for it is everything. [3] It is the only entity that is utterly timeless for no matter how it changes it can never be anything less than everything. It is not bounded by time for its very existence defines time. [4] It knows all that has every happens and all that will ever happen. It determines the outcome of all events through its imitable laws and retains all authority and power.

I find many faults with the above definition.

[1] This is a pantheistic view. 'Everything' would include you and me. Are we part of God? Do we know everything?
[2] You are begging that the universe knows everything or for that matter anything. How do you know this?
[3] It is not timeless if it began to exist. If it did not begin then how did we get to the present or why is there time?
[4] Are you saying the universe is mindful and where is your proof?

Are you a Buddhist?

The above definition applies to the Christian God, with a couple of exceptions.

Originally Posted by Sigfried

The only thing it doesn't do is assuage our egos by setting us above and apart from the rest of creation or ensure that our temporary state of will can transcend the laws of the universe. In this universe, god's concerns are not our concerns. Only in the Gods that we invent for ourselves is that true.

It sounds like you invented your god based on Christian principles - eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, the greatest Being that can be conceived of, and the one necessary for everything else.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS[3] FBA (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British[4] philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics.[5] He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century.[6][7] He also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. In 1992 he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy for "symbolising the open spirit of the 20th century"[8] and for his "enormous influence on the formation of the modern intellectual climate".[8]

Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist/inductivist form of scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. He is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism, "the first non justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".[9] In political discourse, he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he came to believe made a flourishing "open society" possible.

There are a number of people that attack the scientific method on philosophical grounds. Others who attack its practical implementation as being corrupted by politics and cultural norms. And there are those who attack its fundamental value to society as less satisfying that more traditional knowledge systems.

On ODN you will find eye4Magic who while not challenging the validity of science, challenges its ability to access spiritual truths due to its myopic focus on material reality.

I'm not inclined to agree with any of that myself. For me, the proof is in the pudding. Science gets the job of finding consistent knowledge reliably, more reliably than any other system we have available to us. Others have a spotty record of truth claims you can act on and get consistent results.

Sort of. Keep in mind that "God" had an actual name back in the day and was more or less one of many gods. And even the God of today has various names in various cultures. God is a generic term after all, a trick of language to emphasize exclusivity. Its like calling my cat Cat because no other cat is truly a cat, only a shadow of Cat. I try not to let folks rob us of useful language.

I liked what Thomas Kuhn had to say in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about paradigm shifts. When the current theory is no longer adequate to explain what was believed a new paradigm takes shape. Limited human beings find problems in theories of knowledge when pieces of information can no longer fit into the theory and that information conflicting the theory starts to build up and can't be scientifically verified. I also find problems when we assume that the present is the key to the past. Lastly, I find it troublesome when scientists claim to speak on morality as being scientifically verifiable. Science describes what is, not what should be.

Re: Does god exist?

Originally Posted by PGA2

So a Creator can't do things that are outside His creation (miracles)?

You seem to be extrapolating a very simple statement made by Sig into a claim about the Xtian deity's ability to perform miracles, which it is not. All he appears to have meant is that, if the question of the OP is applied to the religious understanding of a deity, for example, the Xtian deity, then his answer is "No".

Originally Posted by PGA2

So do I, but I believe God has left us a revelation that is verifiable. He has 'spoken' to us in various ways; by what has been created, by a written revelation, and through His Spirit and Son.

These are all simply unsupported claims.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I find many faults with the above definition.

You seem again to be taking Sig's statement that he finds little to no fault in a pantheistic view of god as an assertion that pantheism is true. This is not the case.

Originally Posted by PGA2

[1] This is a pantheistic view. 'Everything' would include you and me. Are we part of God? Do we know everything?

Under pantheism, yes, we are part of god, but we don't necessarily know everything - that would depend on the individual pantheist's beliefs. Some might say that we do know everything, but we still need to learn it in order to access that knowledge. Some say that the universe is just the universe (and also god), and that knowledge of reality (what is/the universe) is something we don't have until we learn it. Not much of a difference, but it's not really an issue for pantheism, since at it's core, it's simply defining god as the universe.

Originally Posted by PGA2

[2] You are begging that the universe knows everything or for that matter anything. How do you know this?

Again, Sig is not claiming pantheism is true - just that he finds little fault in it due to its simplicity, compared with the complexity of some religions' ideas of god which he mentioned in the very beginning of his post. In any case, under the pantheistic view, your question can be answered: If "to know" can be defined as "holding the truth" then, since the universe is literally what is true (it is reality), then the universe knows everything. Sig stated that right in #2: "It is the only entity that knows everything for it is everything".

Originally Posted by PGA2

[3] It is not timeless if it began to exist. If it did not begin then how did we get to the present or why is there time?

That the universe began to exist has not been supported, and is not accepted as fact. If you wish to argue this, you'd have to start with first clearly defining what it means to "begin to exist", since this is not really a coherent concept.

Originally Posted by PGA2

[4] Are you saying the universe is mindful and where is your proof?

Again, he's not claiming that pantheism is true. In any case, what exactly is your issue here? That the universe couldn't be mindful or have/be a mind itself?

Originally Posted by PGA2

The above definition applies to the Christian God, with a couple of exceptions.

Yes, the exceptions of the added complexities Sig referred to in the beginning of his post.

Originally Posted by PGA2

It sounds like you invented your god based on Christian principles - eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, the greatest Being that can be conceived of, and the one necessary for everything else.

LOL, these principles existed for deities long before anyone ever thought of the Xtian deity.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I liked what Thomas Kuhn had to say in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about paradigm shifts. When the current theory is no longer adequate to explain what was believed a new paradigm takes shape.

Again with Kuhn! There is no problem with paradigm shifts in science, and they happen more often than you think. You keep trying to make it seem as though this is some big issue in the scientific community which Kuhn has blown the whistle on, but it's not.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Limited human beings find problems in theories of knowledge when pieces of information can no longer fit into the theory and that information conflicting the theory starts to build up and can't be scientifically verified.

With "information conflicting the theory starts to build up and can't be scientifically verified", are you referring to the theory that can't be scientifically verified, or the information can't be scientifically verified? It sounds like you mean the latter, but I think you'll find that, when information is learned which conflicts with existing theories, the information is always verified ad nauseam. If it's not verified, then it can't really be called information

Originally Posted by PGA2

I also find problems when we assume that the present is the key to the past.

Well, what else do you suggest? We are, literally, stuck in the present. We have nothing but the present, and exist only in the present. So it's not an assumption that the present is the key to the past, it's an understanding that the present is all we have available to us when researching the past. This is basically part of necessary methodological naturalism, where we have no choice but to work with what can be empirically examined, measured, and quantified.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Lastly, I find it troublesome when scientists claim to speak on morality as being scientifically verifiable. Science describes what is, not what should be.

Using verifiable facts as the basis of our morality (which is actually what we're all doing anyway) is much better than using unsupported claims, especially when those unsupported suffer from the very same is/ought flaw you just described.

Re: Does god exist?

Originally Posted by PGA2

So a Creator can't do things that are outside His creation (miracles)?

Originally Posted by futureboy

You seem to be extrapolating a very simple statement made by Sig into a claim about the Xtian deity's ability to perform miracles, which it is not. All he appears to have meant is that, if the question of the OP is applied to the religious understanding of a deity, for example, the Xtian deity, then his answer is "No".

Hi Futureboy,

I would request (out of respect) you do not take the Founder, Jesus Christ, out of Christianity with your shortened form.

I was commenting that for the Christian belief we see no difficulty in God doing things that defy the NATURAL world, or enabling believers to do such things. I don't speak for any other worldview, nor do I support any different worldview.

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

In Egypt, under Pharoah, Moses did miracles. During the Exodus God performed miracles. So too, during the second Exodus, Jesus used miracles. After He departed earth, Jesus promised they also would do miraculous works. The purpose of miracles what to convince others of His message and witness to His power. The greatest miracle was the resurrection.

Originally Posted by PGA2

So do I, but I believe God has left us a revelation that is verifiable. He has 'spoken' to us in various ways; by what has been created, by a written revelation, and through His Spirit and Son.

Originally Posted by futureboy

These are all simply unsupported claims.

Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a well-used text on evidence, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, verified that the proof of the resurrection is solid and wrote a book on that evidence which I included in the following link.

If the resurrection is verifiable and well supported, what makes you think other areas of the Bible are not provable also? I continue to harp on the theme of prophecy. Biblical names, places, events also provide proof the claims are true. The internal character of the Bible supports its reliability. These are a few of the motifs that can be shown are reasonable to believe, not far out claims.

I like prophecy, but I find the unbeliever is almost entirely ignorant of it and can't develop a good counter-arguments against it once the case is laid down.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I find many faults with the above definition.

Originally Posted by futureboy

You seem again to be taking Sig's statement that he finds little to no fault in a pantheistic view of god as an assertion that pantheism is true. This is not the case.

Whatever view he holds, he made a comment, "There is even a definition for God I can find little to no fault in. That is to call the universe itself God."

He finds little or no fault in his stated definition of God. God, he equated to the universe in this view. So, either the universe is mindful (since he gives knowledge to it) or it is unintelligent and therefore incapable of intention and understanding. He made many claims without support. I'm basing my response on what was said.

Originally Posted by PGA2

[1] This is a pantheistic view. 'Everything' would include you and me. Are we part of God? Do we know everything?

Originally Posted by futureboy

Under pantheism, yes, we are part of god, but we don't necessarily know everything - that would depend on the individual pantheist's beliefs. Some might say that we do know everything, but we still need to learn it in order to access that knowledge.

Your statements above are full of contradiction and inconsistency.
1) If we are part of 'god' how can we not know everything for that is the definition of 'God' he gave? By nature, God is an omniscient being. If you don't know everything, you do not qualify as being God.
2) How can you learn something new if you know everything? It is a contradiction of terms.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Some say that the universe is just the universe (and also god), and that knowledge of reality (what is/the universe) is something we don't have until we learn it. Not much of a difference, but it's not really an issue for pantheism, since at it's core, it's simply defining god as the universe.

How can an omniscient being learn something? By definition, God knows all things. If you are part of God how would you not know all things?

Sig did more than define 'God' as the universe. He gave this god - the universe - omniscience. Once you do that how do you justify us not knowing all things too?

Originally Posted by PGA2

[2] You are begging that the universe knows everything or for that matter anything. How do you know this?

Originally Posted by futureboy

Again, Sig is not claiming pantheism is true - just that he finds little fault in it due to its simplicity, compared with the complexity of some religions' ideas of god which he mentioned in the very beginning of his post. In any case, under the pantheistic view, your question can be answered: If "to know" can be defined as "holding the truth" then, since the universe is literally what is true (it is reality), then the universe knows everything. Sig stated that right in #2: "It is the only entity that knows everything for it is everything".

And I answered that I find fault in the opinions he expressed by those four points he sees little or NO fault with believing. I also agreed that I would support his views on every religious belief but one - the Judeo-Christian belief system.

The fault (or one of them) I have with the statement, "It is the only entity that knows everything for it is everything" is "everything" incorporates us. I challenge that idea. Neither you, nor I, nor Sig knows everything. The very fact that we disagree shows that we do not. According to the view that the universe is 'god' and we are part of the universe would mean we are god also. God is indivisible. If everything is "God" how can God be divided? How can God know everything and not know everything?

Originally Posted by PGA2

[3] It is not timeless if it began to exist. If it did not begin then how did we get to the present or why is there time?

Originally Posted by futureboy

That the universe began to exist has not been supported, and is not accepted as fact. If you wish to argue this, you'd have to start with first clearly defining what it means to "begin to exist", since this is not really a coherent concept.

Begin to exist - have a beginning. Time (space, time, matter - the universe) began with the universe would be another way of saying it because there cannot be time either without existence or with an eternal being. What significance are 1,000 years in eternity?

The Christian view of the universe is that God created it. It did not exist, then it was. So God is not part of the universe in that the universe is not God, and time starts with the creation of the universe. The way we, as Christians, express this is that God transcends both time and the universe. Not only this but since God transcends time, the past, present, and future is concurrently before His eternal presence. He is the God who IS! He IS when things were past. He IS now in our presence. He IS when things are future to us. They are all present to Him simultaneously. He does not have the limitations we do. We live in the present.

Originally Posted by PGA2

[4] Are you saying the universe is mindful and where is your proof?

Originally Posted by futureboy

Again, he's not claiming that pantheism is true. In any case, what exactly is your issue here? That the universe couldn't be mindful or have/be a mind itself?

He claimed that the belief he expressed is the most reasonable of any religious worldview since he finds little or NO fault with it. If he did not agree with it, then why would he express it in the way he did? It would be interesting to how he answers the questions since you are speaking for him. Unless he has spoken to you about this subject, you may be putting words in his mouth in speaking for him.

I have expressed my issues, one of them being that if the universe is God then we are part of God for we are part of the universe. Therefore, we know all things also. But we don't. So the view he expressed as having little or no fault is inconsistent. Inconsistency speaks of falsity.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The above definition applies to the Christian God, with a couple of exceptions.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Yes, the exceptions of the added complexities Sig referred to in the beginning of his post.

Unless you mean the personal revelations and relationships that contradict biblical revelation, no, you misrepresent the biblical words that express God as being all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful, and personal. To know signifies personal being. A piece of wood or stone does not qualify. It does not know. It cannot reason. It cannot express itself or communicate to us that we may understand it.

Originally Posted by PGA2

It sounds like you invented your god based on Christian principles - eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, the greatest Being that can be conceived of, and the one necessary for everything else.

Originally Posted by futureboy

LOL, these principles existed for deities long before anyone ever thought of the Xtian deity.

The concept would come from the biblical framework as expressed by God throughout history.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I liked what Thomas Kuhn had to say in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about paradigm shifts. When the current theory is no longer adequate to explain what was believed a new paradigm takes shape.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Again with Kuhn! There is no problem with paradigm shifts in science, and they happen more often than you think. You keep trying to make it seem as though this is some big issue in the scientific community which Kuhn has blown the whistle on, but it's not.

The point is how do you know the current model/theory is true to what is? You don't. These theories keep morphing and often are replaced other models and theories that accommodate more of the data consistently.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Limited human beings find problems in theories of knowledge when pieces of information can no longer fit into the theory and when information conflicting the theory starts to build up and can't be scientifically verified.

Originally Posted by futureboy

With "information conflicting the theory starts to build up and can't be scientifically verified", are you referring to the theory that can't be scientifically verified, or the information can't be scientifically verified? It sounds like you mean the latter, but I think you'll find that, when information is learned which conflicts with existing theories, the information is always verified ad nauseam. If it's not verified, then it can't really be called information

Information that conflicts with the theory. When that information that contradicts the theory builds up the theory is discarded for a better theory, one that more consistently explains the additional information.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I also find problems when we assume that the present is the key to the past.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Well, what else do you suggest? We are, literally, stuck in the present. We have nothing but the present, and exist only in the present. So it's not an assumption that the present is the key to the past, it's an understanding that the present is all we have available to us when researching the past. This is basically part of necessary methodological naturalism, where we have no choice but to work with what can be empirically examined, measured, and quantified.

That is the point I'm making. We don't know if the present is the key to the past. We don't know all the factors involved in the data. The present is all we have to go with in determining origins since we can't go back to the past and see how things unfolded.
So how do you know the present is the key to the past? You ASSUME it is.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Lastly, I find it troublesome when scientists claim to speak on morality as being scientifically verifiable. Science describes what is, not what should be.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Using verifiable facts as the basis of our morality (which is actually what we're all doing anyway) is much better than using unsupported claims, especially when those unsupported suffer from the very same is/ought flaw you just described.

Verifiable facts based on what? How do you use empirical quantitative facts to determine qualitative values? Then, what is the objective standard that is best? Who gets to decide? You? Your preference? Cumulative preference? Which ones? Those in power (might makes right)?

Re: Does god exist?

Originally Posted by PGA2

I would request (out of respect) you do not take the Founder, Jesus Christ, out of Christianity with your shortened form.

Out of respect for you or for the man? While, in the past, I've usually told people to go carnally service themselves and continue to use it when they express such entitlement issues as being offended at a symbol (a symbol which, ironically, is historically and linguistically accurate when used in that way), in this case I'll just refrain from using the name at all.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I was commenting that for the Christian belief we see no difficulty in God doing things that defy the NATURAL world, or enabling believers to do such things. I don't speak for any other worldview, nor do I support any different worldview.

Again, nobody was making claims about the deity's ability to perform miracles.

Unfortunately, Greenleaf makes the same mistake as many theists of accepting the bible as a reliable historical source, which it isn't. Further, even if one were to accept that the man even existed and was indeed resurrected, this in no way provides proof for the claimed causal link of his divinity.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If the resurrection is verifiable and well supported, what makes you think other areas of the Bible are not provable also? ... Biblical names, places, events also provide proof the claims are true.

By your logic then, in the distant future after mankind has been reduced to rubble, if someone were to find a comic book in the ruins of New York, they'd be rationally justified in claiming that, since New York existed, so did Spiderman. Do you see the problem here? No amount of information which can be verified as accurate in a text supports any of its other claims supernatural or not. If that were the case, then you'd necessarily have to believe in the supernatural claims of countless other texts which contain at least some historically accurate information. This is what I mean by intellectual honesty and applying the same standards to like claims.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I find the unbeliever is almost entirely ignorant of it and can't develop a good counter-arguments against it once the case is laid down.

No, it's just rational skepticism at work - again, the very same rational skepticism which you readily apply to other religions' claims.

Originally Posted by PGA2

He finds little or no fault in his stated definition of God.

Yes, that's what he said. And you appear to find fault. Again, nobody's making any claims about the truth of pantheism.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Your statements above are full of contradiction and inconsistency.

Again, nobody's making any claims about the truth of pantheism - I'm just describing to you the principles behind it - information which is readily available to anyone.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If we are part of 'god' how can we not know everything for that is the definition of 'God' he gave? By nature, God is an omniscient being. If you don't know everything, you do not qualify as being God.

A pantheist might answer this with, "A part of the whole doesn't necessarily have the same functions/abilities as the whole".

Originally Posted by PGA2

Sig did more than define 'God' as the universe. He gave this god - the universe - omniscience.

Again, he just described the principles behind pantheism - most likely to highlight the simplicity of it following his statement about the complexity of other religions' deities. Again, he was not making the claim that it's true.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I challenge that idea. Neither you, nor I, nor Sig knows everything. The very fact that we disagree shows that we do not.

Again, a pantheist might remind you that parts of the whole aren't the same as the whole itself, and might make a comparison between a human, who is made up of different parts, each part having its own abilities ("knowledge"), but not those of the whole human. By that logic, each of us being a part of the whole universe add to it's "whole-ness", but we aren't each the same as the whole. The universe, by containing all different sorts of people, knows everything they know. By containing scientists and skeptics, the universe knows how to think rationally and reason, and by containing theists, the universe knows how to also not do those things.
But again, if you have an issue with the principles behind pantheism - take it up with a proponent of it - I can only answer your questions as far as I understand the principles themselves, but since I don't personally believe them, I can only help you so far.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Begin to exist - have a beginning.

In that case, it may indeed be that the current observable state of our universe had a beginning - but this is not the same as what some folks mean when they say it "began to exist". Could you clarify which change you mean: "change from a previous (unknown) state to the current observable state", or "change from not existing to existing".

Originally Posted by PGA2

It did not exist, then it was ... God is not part of the universe in that the universe is not God ... God transcends both time and the universe

Feel free to provide support for any of this. Otherwise, they are claims which must be retracted. And remember, no amount of biblical predictions or historical accuracy actually serves as evidence for those claims.

Originally Posted by PGA2

He claimed that the belief he expressed is the most reasonable of any religious worldview since he finds little or NO fault with it.

*SIGH*, again, he just described pantheism and compared it to other more complex deities.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If the universe is God then we are part of God for we are part of the universe. Therefore, we know all things also.

Feel free to provide support for this claim.

Originally Posted by PGA2

To know signifies personal being.

Again the usage of "know" in play with pantheism has already been described: If "to know" can be defined as "holding the truth" then, since the universe is literally what is true (it is reality), then the universe knows everything. Sig stated that right in #2: "It is the only entity that knows everything for it is everything".
You are obviously using it differently than pantheists.

Originally Posted by PGA2

To know signifies personal being. A piece of wood or stone does not qualify. It does not know. It cannot reason. It cannot express itself or communicate to us that we may understand it.

Again, under the definition provided, a pantheist might say that a stone "knows" how to be a stone since that's what it is (it holds the truth of stone-ness), and by containing the stone-ness part, the universe also "knows" how to be a stone.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The concept would come from the biblical framework as expressed by God throughout history.

Again, the principles have existed for deities (those which are incompatible with yours) long before.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The point is how do you know the current model/theory is true to what is? You don't. These theories keep morphing and often are replaced other models and theories that accommodate more of the data consistently.

Again, this is not the problem you're trying to make it into. When new information is presented, the current models are applied and if the information fits, then the model works and we keep it. If the information doesn't fit, then the model loses its predictive capability and a new model is required, or at least some changes must be made to the current model. As long as the available information fits with our current models, we can rely on their predictive capabilities.

Originally Posted by PGA2

We don't know if the present is the key to the past.

Again, since all we have is the present, whether the key to the past is the present or something else is completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by PGA2

So how do you know the present is the key to the past? You ASSUME it is.

It's not an assumption, it's a realization that the present is all we have to go on, and no other reliable sources of information have been presented.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Verifiable facts based on what?

Um, facts which are verified?

Originally Posted by PGA2

How do you use empirical quantitative facts to determine qualitative values?

By comparing what the facts show as serving the goal of maximizing human flourishing and minimizing unnecessary human suffering.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Then, what is the objective standard that is best? Who gets to decide? You? Your preference? Cumulative preference? Which ones? Those in power (might makes right)?